Author Archives: Stewart Reddaway

A progressive carbon tax policy to reduce both CO2 and poverty

By Stewart Reddaway | Wed 10th June 2020 - 7:00 pm

Not taxing carbon is a bit like trying to reduce smoking without taxing cigarettes.

Raising the cost of carbon with a comprehensive carbon tax on all fossil fuels, collected at the point of production or import, uses market forces to reduce CO2 emissions in a very cost-effective and efficient way. Both energy efficiency and the use of low-CO2 energy are encouraged.

It applies to all sectors, including heating, industry, electricity generation and transport.

Fossil fuel subsidies, for example, tax breaks on the North Sea oil and gas, are a negative carbon tax and should be withdrawn.

If the money raised is paid back as a dividend to all UK residents on an equal-per-head monthly basis, then people with a below-average total carbon footprint (i.e. those for whom the dividend payments exceed the effect of price rises due to the tax) are subsidised by those with above-average footprints. Children can be rated at half the adult rate, which can be added to Child Benefit. The dividend, a form of UBI (Universal Basic Income), makes the policy progressive. Poor people’s limited total spending power means their total carbon footprint is almost always below average, even including increased home heating costs, making them winners; as will nearly all people in fuel poverty. Overall, poverty is reduced.

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Tagged and | 6 Comments

Stop the carbon offsetting Greenwash

By Stewart Reddaway | Mon 4th May 2020 - 4:12 pm

The current virus has temporarily reduced carbon emissions, but climate change is still important.

Carbon offsetting is used to enable an organisation or person engaged in an activity that emits CO2 (or other Greenhouse Gas (GHG)), such as flying, to pay to support project(s) that reduce emissions so they can claim a neutral net effect on climate change. There is a wide range of such projects on offer commercially, an example being planting trees. The cost in £/ton of CO2 varies very widely, and the control and auditing of the validity of their claims is weak. Naturally, both organisations and …

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Tagged | 4 Comments
Advert

Recent Comments

  • Peter Martin
    @ Paul, I accept you are agreeing to an extent. A limited extent. "There are ample legal mechanisms for ensuring that the financial settlement with t...
  • Paul WalterPaul Walter
    Peter: “We shouldn’t tolerate the term “Crown Dependency” being a synonym for “tax haven”.” I don’t know whether you are actually reading my ...
  • David Raw
    I rather thought the 3rd Duke and Duchess of Atholl sold the Isle of Man's feudal and sovereign rights in 1765 for £70,000 via the Isle of Man Purchase Act 176...
  • Roland
    @Peter Martin - I was responding to the curved ? ball Jeff throw out about Motability: If they can't charge VAT then its okay to reclaim the VAT rather than sim...
  • Peter Martin
    @ Simon, "Low earners on the IOM pay tax at 21% compared to – I think – 20% in the UK" I don't know where you get your IOM figure from. It is easy eno...